Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 15
LANGUAGE
English 15
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
savings and efficiencies, but also looking at the current situation with spending within the pentagon and making sure that our leaders there have the ability to make sure that they meet this nation's priority in making those spending decision. i appreciate the opportunity to coming -- to come before you. we look forward to taking your questions. >> can you clarify, does it completely remove defense? >> it would. sequestration has two primary components that we dislike. one is the severity of the cuts in national defense and the second is the arbitrary way in which it doesn't. what we are basically saying is we ought to at least agree on the national security defense and we do not want to do anything that would jeopardize that. this bill is in a simplistic form that everyone can expand -- can understand, that sequestration would not be good for national defense. adjusting the numbers anywhere they wanted to, but it would basically say that we are not going to use this kind of arbitrary approach when it comes to national defense. >> we tend to be hearing two messages from republicans. o
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is i have hadtors than with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was the start of
to continue on the washington post article that came all recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that would keep only 8000 troops in afghanistan. general austin, can you support a plan that was scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? we are looking at the withdrawal of troops in afghanistan. according to this article, from 8000 to about 1000 in a short period and of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends on troops on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are at that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i would really work hard to make sure i fully understood what to the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. my advice as a commander on the ground or a commander of central command -- i would provide my advice to them based upon where i think the security forces are , the conditions in the theater, and what i think we need to do to move full word to make sure we maintai
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to thisarticle from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i ve questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would ovide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the gain
. as is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years apply to the pentagon budget would only reduce it in inflation adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 a. the most powerful military in the world -- 2007, as the most powerful military in the world engaged in a war in iraq and the challenge in afghanistan. if members of congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce pentagon spending without undermining america's position as being the most powerful nation on the planet. and nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than walter pinkus writhing on the pages of the "washington post" over the last couple years as he details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. this morning's latest offering should be required reading for every member of congress and the ones who whine the loutest should be forced to read it -- loudest should be forced to read it twice. he details a vast array of nuclear weapons already deployed, ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our conten
the pentagon thinks they do not want or need, whether it they happen to be built in their districts. there is always plenty of room. as i understand it, the idea of the sequestration and originated with the president and his budget director, mr. lew. that is how they came up with this concept. republicans should simply let the thing become a fact. it is the only opportunity we have to make the present make any cuts at all. he seems to be so opposed to spending cuts and is only interested in finding tax and revenue. in my personal opinion, what we need to do is step back and take a look at our military and our commitments. we have bases in europe that have no reason to be there, certainly not in the numbers we are. host: we will leave it there. thanks for your call. ray locker? guest: we have a lot of military commitments all over the world. do we need to maintain a base in germany, for example? we could lessen our footprint there. there is a base on the islands in the atlantic that are controlled by portugal. we could dial that all presence there. if things get bad enough and there
, but the sequester is set to happen next friday, march 1. the pentagon is addressing that next friday and there will be a news conference coming up at 1:00 p.m. eastern to talk about pentagon plans on c-span 2 at 1:00. gail is on the democrat line. what did you think of the secretary's speech? >> i thought that his speech was excellent. i am really grateful for the secretary and what he is doing. we live in an interdependent world and it is important that we give foreign policy rights. that also includes getting the budget right. that is the message around the world. if we want to be successful, we need to do this at home, we need to make sure that we are sending the message of who americans are out of the world. thank you so much, senator -- secretary carry, for what you're doing. >> john, independent line. >> i would like -- i like to the secretary's speech. it had ambition and scope. i wish him great success in the job. i do feel that he has to overcome a legacy of failure from hillary clinton in her years as secretary of state. >> what is the specific failure he has to overcome? c
in new york. the pentagon is broken. what do we know about al qaeda? did we know that members of this network, all this information we take for granted now? >> we did not know that much. we did not know who was responsible for 9/11. we had a few assets that provided us some peripheral information. we did not know very much. it took a long time for us to be in a position to really learn what was going on. in march of 2002, we captured al zabeta. we recognized that we had to do something different. contrary to what some people are saying, he initially provided a couple of pieces of information. then he shut down. we knew they were coming after us in the second wave of attacks. we knew that they had a nuclear program. they had a biological weapons program. we thought we needed to do something different. that is when the enhanced interrogation program came into existence. he went through the program, started in august of 2002 for 20 days or so. a few weeks later we captured a major player. he was a go-between. this was the key to all of that. we forget that it was not just osama b
of the pentagon. it was clearly unsettled. it looked much worse than we had thought. the first hope was that if we got saddam hussein, that would solve the problem. we made an effort to do that. in december, we picked up saddam. it became obvious that, as one of my guys described, a bunch of former regime guys were not really running the beginning of the resistance, the beginning of the insurgency. zarqawi had started to build a network that took trained people, or iraqi sunnis -- trained people, iraqi sunnis, who had been dislocated from their position in society, sometimes government, sometimes military might and they were terrified of the shia, which was going to be dominant in the future. you had this combination of factors that was fear of the future, frustration against foreign invaders, and then -- not as much religious extremism as sometimes is perceived. it was not really an al qaeda religious movement. it was a political movement, but he got leveraged by some very clever work by people like abu musab al-zarqawi. we were very sure he was there at the beginning of early 2004. we started to
there and can be a very effective leader at the pentagon. john brennan is somebody i worked with as director of the c.i.a. and continue to work with in this capacity. and i always found him to be very responsible about how we can effectively conduct operations against al qaeda and against those that would attack this country. he is somebody a straight shooter, somebody who gives you his best opinion. he doesn't play games. he's someone who i think can really honestly represent the best protection of this country in that job. >> thank you very much. and i want to thank you for your forth right comments today about the sequester. ironically as what you said in your statement, it appears the greatest threat to the united states security is the united states congress. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. let me mention this, after senator nelson, the first round will be over. there may be a number of us who may want a few minutes on the second round and you two witnesses have been here for three hours and you may need a five or 10-minute break. do you want that following senator nelson or go
accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been warning about these sooner? >> first, we started the slowdown in spending on january 10. a number of the measures that i mentioned went into effect shortly after that. significant efforts were made to slow down spending on more draconian actions later. i know that people felt we should have said more earlier. 15 months ago the secretary sent a letter to the u.s. congress saying that the effects of sequestration would be devastating. after that we testified in august and again in september, we listed every single major item we're talking about. we said that there would be cutbacks in readiness and a unit buys would go down with unit costs growing up. what we did not do was detailed budget planning. i do not regret that. if we did it 60 months ago, we would have been wrong. we would not know that congress would have changed the size and the date and we would not have incurred the tigre -- we would not have incurred the degradation route. we sounded the alarm in every way that we could. >> what kind of contract are you having with the
-- pentagon spending cuts set for march 1. later in the day, republican governor gary herbert will talk about his efforts to reform health care in his date and discuss utah's use of health insurance exchanges. he recently met with health secretary sibelius. live coverage at 12:30 p.m. eastern. >> according to pakistan's ambassador, drone strikes in pakistan are illegal and counterproductive. sherry rahman spoke to the christian science monitor on tuesday. here are part of her remarks. you can see the entire event on c-span.org. >> ambassador, i want to ask about drones. position is that they are a violation of your sovereignty and international law. under both of those categories, you have a right -- why don't you shoot down the drones? further, has pakistan threatens to shoot down drones. if not, why not? i ask this because there is an understanding that well pakistan publicly opposes strikes -- why don't you shoot down the drones? >> let me address this as most spokespeople to -- they speak to what they can. it is an important question. you asked a question which many ask. is there quiet co
, there is concern of layoffs. the dimensions darpa -- you d darpa. the except the restraints on the pentagon plus those coming into play, that have negative impacts? >> we are not a big player in that space anymore. i think a little bit of catalyst is something you see in every corner of the world. whether it is europe or china or anyplace else, i did not go to one place where there is no one government at all. the private sector is still very strong here and innovative. the private sector can pick up a lot. just getting it done. the will be such a value in a just getting some of these things behind us so we can adjust to move forward. the sigh of relief is incredibly important right now. i am an optimist. it does not end with a discussion on washington. we can compete. the work force of the to this country is as good as any in the world. >> thank you for the optimistic note. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] moste church is boston's visited historic site. half a million come to the church every year because
until today to make these announcements. do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been we listed every major item we are talking about. we said we had to do furloughs. we said there would be cutbacks in readiness. we said unit costs would go up. all the same things. what we didn't do with a detailed budget planning and i don't regret that. we wouldn't have known the effects of the continuing resolution. we wouldn't have known that congress is going to change the size and the. moreover, we would have incurred the productivity and we would v done it six months ago, so i don't regret not doing that. i think we did sound the alarm in every way we could. >> i am wondering what kind of contract you are having with the white house and with congress there is going to have to be some. so are you trying to offer any solutions? also, i am wondering, what other things would you be doing right now if you were not spending all your time on this sequester. >> spending time with my wife -- i think i am hot the right person to answer. we are responsible for providing the nation's securi
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)